Common use of JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION Clause in Contracts

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-By- law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. section 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-MFDA By- law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the a Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-By- law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. section 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s Respondents’ activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent Respondents had engaged in activity for which the Respondent Respondents could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-By- law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. section 24.1 of By-By- law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s Respondents’ activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent Respondents had engaged in activity for which the Respondent Respondents could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of the By-law No. 1law.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 23. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. section 24.1 of By-By- law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. section 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the a Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent he could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 23. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity activities for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. section 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 23. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activitiesactivities of the Respondents. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent Respondents had engaged in activity for which the Respondent Respondents could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation discovered during a regularly scheduled compliance examination of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed activities that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the a Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 24.1.2 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s Respondents’ activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent Respondents had engaged in activity for which the Respondent Respondents could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s Respondents’ activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had Respondents have engaged in activity for which the Respondent Respondents could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity activities for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1By- Law No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation discovered during regularly scheduled compliance examinations of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed activities that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 23. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. section 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 23. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s Respondents’ activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1No.1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 23. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of into the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent she could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION. 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on upon the exercise of the discretion of the a Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of the By-law No. 1law.